Cradle to Cradle: The elimination of the concept of waste

Myles Jellison

English 213

3/18/12

Most people want to help protect and preserve the environment. There are many views on how to best do this, and most focus on reducing use and recycling what can be saved. While the idea is admirable, these actions can cause more harm than good. Recycling materials that were not designed to be recycled leads to the use of hazardous materials in the process and less value in the end product. Although Cradle to Cradle by William McDonough and Micheal Braungart defies current environmental thinking, it is an eye-opening book because it reveals the incorrect policies of the past, the fatal flaws of the present generation, and improved strategies for the future.

In the past, industry was purely driven by profit and the bottom line. The industrial revolution was a dirty time of mass production and environmental sacrifice. This leads to the environment getting polluted by the byproducts and products that are designed to be cheap to produce. However, this idea of cheap production does not take into account the environmental and social cost of these dangerous products. When these costs are considered the flaws in the past way of thinking become apparent. The unimaginable huge amounts of toxic byproducts and the amount of money invested in useless waste are huge costs that hurt industry and the environment. (McDonough & Braungart) A system that feeds off of the Earth without giving any in return goes against all of nature and can only lead to destruction.

The present social environment focuses on the ideas reduce, reuse, recycle, and regulate. Reducing the amount of products used and thus the waste and toxins created by those products does not help fix the problem; it just puts off the inevitable outcome, a barren, toxic Earth devoid of resources. Reusing products also helps in the short run but fails to address the real problems. Even after reusing a product it still is discarded and those valuable materials are lost. Recycling tries to address the problem of lost materials but really, materials are still lost as most recycling is actually down cycling; a material is recovered in a less valuable state. Water bottles are melted down but the plastics are degraded in the process and cannot be used for bottles again but have to be used as artificial turf or other products that can be made with weaker materials. Also, the byproducts of recycling can be much worse than the byproducts of the original production. The harsh chemicals and processes can release more toxins then if the product was just thrown away. These chemicals and other byproducts released by the production and recycling have been released I n such quanities that the government decided it needed to step in and regulate the environmental effects of industry. The constant battle between environmentalists and industry has created a polarized view; environmental considerations directly fight profit and success. This could not be further for the truth. Factories made to be pleasant to work in and environmentally friendly have shown an ability to entice workers and save millions of dollars. Ford motor company has redesigned their factories with the help of input from the authors and in one particular instance saved over 50 million dollars just from using environmentally helpful sewer systems. As McDonough and Braungart point out, a balanced view that considers all issues of economy, equity and ecology is needed. If even one of these issues is valued more than the others then the whole discussion making process is flawed and any solutions will be invalid, useless and harmful.

However, if a proper system is used to come to logical and truly low cost processes, then real change and improvement can be made. A five step process to create better products is presented; get rid of known environmental culprits, follow informed personal preferences, create a list of categorized products by environmental impact, use the list to redesign products using safer materials, and finally completely reinvent the product. The end result is not an improved product with a reduced impact, but a totally new product that was designed from the beginning to have minimal impact and be easily broken down. The gradual scale of this process allows for companies to start improving their products now and work up to full scale reinvention of manufacturing. Starting by optimizing the materials used can have major positive improvements of both economic and environmental considerations. By designing with the end of a product’s lifespan in mind products can become truly waste free. The authors constantly use a stress the difference between biological nutrients and technical nutrients. These two separate metabolisms, the technical material cycle and the biological cycle can be used in designs to create products with zero waste and some that even produce positive byproducts. Shoes that have biodegradable soles and plastic uppers that can be separated from the soles and up cycled into new shoes or better products while the soles can be returned to the environment with no waste or toxicity. By utilizing the nutrient cycles separately the authors can maximize usefulness of the produces materials and minimize environmental impact. These ideals are just the start to a world vision of closed circle production and consumer loops, where the waste of one process becomes nutrients for the next process. (McDonough & Braungart)

These changes will not occur overnight, Cradle to Cradle outlines how the needed changes can be made gradually and productively. The authors present their arguments, the facts, their sources, and their solutions in a very organized and effective manner. With the help and consul of people like the writers we can save our planet. We need to not just work on minimizing or avoiding or only reducing waste. We need to design waste out of the equation completely, so that waste ceases to exist. (McDonough & Braungart) If this dream becomes a reality, children of all species will benefit.

 

Reference

 

McDonough, W., & Braungart, M. (2003). Cradle to cradle, remaking the way we make things. New York: North Point Pr.

Karoseberry2 Workshop Draft 2

Karoseberry2 Workshop Draft 2

 

 

WORKSHOP TEMPLATE

 

Overall

1. What does the author do particularly well? Be specific.

Illustrating the life of polar bears. A picture is painted in the descriptive way the polar bears are surviving and what they are going through. I knew there was change going on to the habitat of polar bears but did not visualize what is happening to them.

 

2. Ask the author for one particular concern that s/he had about the draft. Examine that area and see if you can offer the author helpful suggestions.

Any concerns you have?

 

Thesis

 

3. Does the author clearly express his/her opinion of the topic in the thesis?

Yes, it is clear they should not be removed from the endangered list despite local opinion of the Alaska natives is the argument of the paper.

 

4. Does the thesis follow the format we’ve been using (ALTHOUGH clause, argumentative claim, BECAUSE clause with 3 reasons of support)? Is thesis bolded or underlined and in last sentence of intro paragraph?

 

Although Alaskan Natives disagree with it, the polar bear should remain on the endangered species list because their changing environment negatively influences their hunting, energy, and reproduction.

 

Content

 

5. How many words is the draft, not including References?

 

1927

 

6. On a scale of 1 to 10, how interesting did you find this paper to read? Be brutally honest!

I give this paper a 10, extremely interesting. The information about what happens to the young polar bears for example the mother and cub swimming for over 400 miles and the cub didn’t make it. These stories keep me reading more become more interested in what was going on with the polar bears.

 

7. Where can the author more fully develop ideas, either by providing examples or explaining/clarifying concepts for the reader?

 

I liked the example that polar bears walk as quietly as the snow falling. But where is the proof. I think having a few more citations on the polar bears behavior would add more creditability to the paper.

 

8. What kinds of objections might someone who disagrees with the author’s point of view raise?

 

Not that many polar bears are affected. These are only a few examples not the majority of the polar bears are affects. Also that hunting polar bears is important to Alaska native’s ability to survive in the harsh climate as well.

 

9. Has the author dealt with these objections? If not, suggest some good places to deal with them.

 

Briefly mentions a compromise to the Alaska Natives. But I do think adding more how it would benefit the Natives would be more persuasive I would think. Like reminding them that lowering hunting amounts of polar bears would allow for the population to grow again providing long term sustainable hunting in later years for there children.

 

10. Is the relationship between each paragraph and the thesis clear? If not, what suggestions do you have for the author to improve the connection?

 

I think the connections are clear and well done.

 

Style

 

11. Are there easy transitions from one paragraph to the next, or does the author jump from topic to topic?

 

Easy transitions are done throughout.

 

12. Does the opening of the essay capture the reader’s attention? How so? If not, what suggestions can you make that might strengthen the opening? Does the essay have an informative yet interesting title?

 

Yes! Vary good use of words to paint a picture of day of a polar bear. I like the title. I think it is clear and concise.

 

13. Does the concluding paragraph serve to bring the discussion to an end that logically follows from the thesis and its direction? If your buddy’s conclusion just restates the thesis, call him/her on that, and help them come up with a better conclusion. Maybe give them tips from the Hacker handbook (section C).

 

I think it would be good to make it less of a passive voice. Instead of decent compromise say it is a good compromise. Something to show that is how it should be rather then a sacrifice on the native’s part. Also I think adding to how it is best for the Alaska natives to allow polar bear pollution to grow is beneficial would be good to add too.

 

Research

 

14. Does the draft contain at least 10 sources (5 peer-reviewed/scholarly sources from EbscoHost or another database)?

10 sources

 

15. Does the author rely heavily on just 1 or 2 sources, or does the author equally use all of the sources to support the paper’s thesis?

Good use of support.

 

16. Does the author use in-text citations after every quotation, statistic, paraphrase, idea and opinion borrowed from research? Are the in-text citations done in correct APA formatting?

No I feel that the behavior of the polar bears should be cited as well as Alaska Native opinion. Who said Natives think polar bears are fine?

 

17. Does the author have anything on the Reference list that is not used in the essay (she/he should not)?

References that were used were good.

 

18. Does the author have more quotations/statistics/paraphrases/etc in his/her paper than personal opinion? Essay should read as an argument, not as a report.

 

No there is a good amount of opinion in this paper. Argumentative paper as well.

 

19. Are they any quotations that are longer than 2 lines?

 

They are all used well throughout the paper.

 

20. Are there any quotations that you think should instead be paraphrased? Remember that too many quotations lead to clunky and chunky essays.

Good use of quotations.

 

21. Any quotations should be commented upon. They are there to support the author’s argument, not to make it. Does the author comment after every one? If not, help the author decide what the underlying reason behind putting the quote in the paper was.

No.

 

Other?  

 

Is there any other feedback you’d like to give your buddy?

 

Great paper. I had no idea. Never took the time to think what was happening to polar bears and you really bring the reader right to the problem. You’re almost so descriptive you rub it in our face making me feel I need to do something about this.  Continue with the great descriptions that is your strong suit.

Essay 3 Proposal – Unsafe Mail: The Dangers of Checking the Mail

Unsafe Mail: The Dangers of Checking the Mail

            Checking the mail is an every day task whether the mailbox is at the end of a driveway or inside a postal office and requires a key.  Either way, it is something people do on a regular basis throughout their lives.  Unfortunately, checking the mail in North Pole, Alaska, has become an increasingly dangerous task due to the location where mailboxes are being placed.  Instead of safer neighborhood roads, mailboxes are being installed on busier streets, such as Badger Road, Dawson Road, and Plack Road.  Although the placement of mailboxes may create a faster route for the postal service, local North Pole neighborhoods should petition to move their mailboxes onto their own neighborhood streets rather than main roads because it will reduce the litter that becomes ignored in convenient mailbox locations, create a safer place to check the mail, and diminish the eyesore that mailboxes have created for the local community.

            When a set of mailboxes are built on a busy street with cars whizzing by every time someone checks their mail, it is understandable why that person does not want to spend a great deal of time there.  He or she wants to make their mailbox trip as quick as possible.  Unfortunately, through these races to the mailbox, small pieces of junk mail and trash become thrown around the area, littering the mailbox grounds.  The litter is also a result of being located on the side of a main road.  Like every other road, litter is a problem due to careless drivers who simply throw their trash out the window or fail to secure belongings in the back of their vehicles.  The problem at stake here is that the litter is surrounding the community’s mailboxes, a place people face every day.  It is rare for a neighborhood to take their time to pick up the garbage when making their speedy run for their mail.  As a result, this trash is left untouched.  By moving mailboxes onto a smaller neighborhood road, the traffic litter is diminished and the neighborhood feels more comfortable checking their mail, spending the time they need at their mailboxes.  With this time, they have the chance to notice when mail is dropped or litter is found.  They have the opportunity to pick it up and clean the area to their liking so that checking the mail can be a more relaxing task.

            Litter is not the only element to consider in moving mailboxes off main roads.  Sadly, danger is also a factor that plays a large role.  People rush to and from their mailboxes for a reason: traffic.  Many of these busy two-way roads lack a shoulder to give residents room to safely walk to their mailboxes.  Instead, people must walk directly on the road in order to reach their mailbox, causing traffic to shift over into the other lane to pass.  Unfortunately, some drivers are not that considerate and simply speed past, not noticing how close their vehicle actually is to the person.  Moreover, winter causes the roads to be icy and far more dangerous for both drivers and pedestrians.  Sending people out on to these treacherous roads to check their mail is not only putting their own lives in danger, but it also creates another unsafe obstacle in drivers’ ways.  Having mailboxes moved onto neighborhood roads gives people the chance to pull to the side of their street and check their mail without walking out to a risky road where they may not be seen.

            Altogether, mailboxes are the cause of a major eyesore in the community.  As new houses are built and different neighbors move in, more mailboxes are added to the collection down the street.  This continuous addition of mailboxes causes the mailbox grounds to become a junkyard of various pieces of lumber and nails.  The ground becomes uneven and mailboxes tilt all different directions.  Many mailbox posts are constantly falling over due to winter driving accidents and unstable ground.  In the end, the scattered mailboxes down busy streets become a messy sight and an eyesore for what would be a beautiful community.  People need to take the step to move this disaster of a sight off of the main roads and create a way for mailboxes to be an organized and convenient area.  Neighborhood communities simply need to gather eighty percent of household votes in their area to sign a petition and turn into the North Pole Postal Service.  With this, they may receive the approval to move mailboxes onto the neighborhood street.  By doing this, they have the chance to come together as a neighborhood and work on cleaning their mailboxes in a way that suits them.  Some neighborhoods have done this already and have built structures that hold all the mailboxes together, rather than individual posts.  Some have even agreed to purchase the same mailbox and line them up in way that makes distributing mail easier on postmen.  There are numerous ways neighborhoods can diminish the eyesore and create a system that works solely for them – they simply need to take the first step.

            While checking the mail is a simple task, it is also a task that deserves a second look.  The North Pole community should take this second look and move mailboxes off of busy roads and onto safe neighborhood streets.  This decreases the amount of litter that is overlooked, creates a safer environment for checking the mail, and takes away the eyesore that mailboxes create.  Luckily, there is a simple way in making this happen and all it requires is the teamwork of neighborhoods in the community.  Checking the mail should not be a task that people hesitate in doing simply because of its location.  Checking the mailbox should be as easy as opening the letters found inside of it.

WORKSHOP FOR K.JOHNSON

Draft #1

Workshop for K.JOHNSON

 

 

Overall

1. What does the author do particularly well? Be specific.

She presents her case with strong facts to backup her thesis.

2. Ask the author for one particular concern that s/he had about the draft. Examine that area and see if you can offer the author helpful suggestions.

 

Thesis

3. Does the author clearly express his/her opinion of the topic in the thesis?

Although the way Johnson has chosen to word her thesis is a little rough, she states her opinion with confidence and urgency.

4. Does the thesis follow the format we’ve been using (ALTHOUGH clause, argumentative claim, BECAUSE clause with 3 reasons of support). Is thesis bolded or underlined and in last sentence of intro paragraph?

Yes

Content

5. How many words is the draft, not including References?

1,228

6. On a scale of 1 to 10, how interesting did you find this paper to read? Be brutally honest!

7

7. Where can the author more fully develop ideas, either by providing examples or explaining/clarifying concepts for the reader?

As the reader, I would like to be shown examples of actual cases of health problems due to PM or ozone levels.

8. What kinds of objections might someone who disagrees with the author’s point of view raise?

One might point out that there is no solid evidence of high levels of health problems due to PM or ozone.

9. Has the author dealt with these objections? If not, suggest some good places to deal with them.

She has.

10. Is the relationship between each paragraph and the thesis clear? If not, what suggestions do you have for the author to improve the connection?

Yes

Style

11. Are there easy transitions from one paragraph to the next, or does the author jump from topic to topic?

Smooth paragraph transition.

12. Does the opening of the essay capture the reader’s attention? How so? If not, what suggestions can you make that might strengthen the opening? Does the essay have an informative yet interesting title?

The author grabs the reader’s attention by a blow to the heart. What I mean by this is she states that children are dying too early, most readers will feel sorrow when this is presented to them and then they will want to know more.

13. Does the concluding paragraph serve to bring the discussion to an end that logically follows from the thesis and its direction? If your buddy’s conclusion just restates the thesis, call him/her on that, and help them come up with a better conclusion. Maybe give them tips from the Hacker handbook (section C).

The conclusion presents solution, and comes back to the thesis in a new way. In my opinion, this is a great way to end the paper.

Research

14. Does the draft contain at least 10 sources (5 peer-reviewed/scholarly sources from EbscoHost or another database).

Yes

15. Does the author rely heavily on just 1 or 2 sources, or does the author equally use all of the sources to support the paper’s thesis?

Relatively equal use

16. Does the author use in-text citations after every quotation, statistic, paraphrase, idea and opinion borrowed from research? Are the in-text citations done in correct APA formatting?

Yes

17. Does the author have anything on the Reference list that is not used in the essay (she/he should not).

No

18. Does the author have more quotations/statistics/paraphrases/etc in his/her paper than personal opinion? Essay should read as an argument, not as a report.

No

19. Are they any quotations that are longer than 2 lines?

Yes

20. Are there any quotations that you think should instead be paraphrased? Remember that too many quotations lead to clunky and chunky essays.

No

21. Any quotations should be commented upon. They are there to support the author’s argument, not to make it. Does the author comment after every one? If not, help the author decide what the underlying reason behind putting the quote in the paper was.

No

Other?  

Is there any other feedback you’d like to give your buddy?

 

Response 14: Good Enough to Drink

Mattie Bly

Good Enough To Drink

Clean water is a resource that is greatly taken for granted. The website 20 Liters http://20liters.org/ is an organization raising awareness and making a change in the accessibility of clean water in Masaka, Rwanda.

In many parts of the world, people walk miles and miles every day to fill up just a 20 liter can of muddy unsafe water from a stream or pond. 20 Liters is devoted to creating access to clean water for all that lack it. Lack of clean water can lead to disease and death. Every 20 seconds, a child dies from a water related disease. Dirty water kills more people than all forms of violence including war. Collecting water takes up several hours a day for women and children, with cans weighing up to 44 pounds.

With support 20 liters is providing easy and cheap solutions to water deprivation in Rwanda. These solutions include rooftop rainwater harvesting as well as water filters for the jugs used. The website effectively shows how these solutions have huge beneficial impact to the people using them and how it will change their way of life.

20 liters is an empowering organization that effectively gets its story and purpose out into the world. In one section, it describes the people of Rwanda, their stories,  their daily lives, and how 20 liters will benefit them. The website gives factual information and makes it easy for anyone to help or simply donate to the cause. 20 liters is a cheap and beneficial cause in bringing all of the world clean and safe water.

Essay 2 Book Review- Environmental Destruction: Lets Get Toxic

Mattie Bly

Environmental Destruction: Lets get Toxic

The creation of life on earth took hundreds of millions of years. It required complex evolutionary processes and diversification, which make up the vast world of today. Sadly, it took less than one hundred years for humans to nearly destroy all of it. With toxic chemicals and reckless behavior, humans have coated the earth with toxic film giving it no time to recover. Frivolous wants of the human race have started a war against its precious environment and have won countless times. Although many have argued humans’ affects on the environment, Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring is the environmental defense novel that has transformed human’s actions because it develops mounting evidence against harmful modern day industries, approaches human’s destructive alterations on nature with solutions, and is a primary source for environmentalism as a whole.

Since the 1940′s, over 200 basic chemicals have been created for the use of killing insects, weeds, and rodents, all sold under thousands of different brand names. Agencies within the chemical industry claim only beneficial wonders of their creations, ignoring the growing long term toxic effects they produce. These control agencies have consistently pushed humans towards a chemically sterile and insect free world. Using valuable resources such as The Ecology of Invasions by Charles Elton, Rachel Carson stands up to these agencies and reveals to the world
their destructive secrets. Carson uncovers evidence of officials allowing poisonous and biologically potent chemicals indiscriminately
into the hands of persons ignorant of their harmful potential. Companies were also found putting chemicals on the market, without proper and thorough testing of their effects.

Chemical agencies clearly only have one desire and that is to make a dollar at whatever cost. When faced with public protests and obvious evidence of damaging results due to pesticide applications, agencies fill the public’s mind with half truths of what they want to hear. This is done in hopes of keeping the truth quiet and hidden. This is still occurring today with residues of chemicals lingering among soil and tissues of fish and
birds, from chemicals dumped into the environment decades ago. Yet with this destruction, the chemical industry still thrives, feeding
helpless humans with lies.

Humans today have acquired significant power to alter the nature of this world. This has lead to the contamination of the air, rivers, and seas of the precious earth that created us. The results of this contamination from dangerous and lethal materials are almost irreversible, thanks to the providers, the chemical agencies. Countless times, agencies have allowed chemicals to be used with no advance investigation of their effect on
soil, water, wildlife, and humans. There has been limited awareness of the nature of this threat. With these lies revealed, Carson pushes readers to fight back against the corrupt industries. Solutions to stopping this madness are to question the authorities involved and push for answers and legitimate test results of the chemicals surrounding them.

Just because something is annoying or abundant, doesn’t mean you destroy or kill it. In the attempt to remove annoying insects and pests from
the earth, humans have began to learn that this may be harder than it seems. This is due to nature fighting back. With mass applications of
new chemicals, insects repeatedly come back, as well as come back resistant to the chemicals trying to destroy them. Rachel Carson repeatedly addresses this destructive issue, stressing better solutions to what humans think is a problem. She explains how humans are ignoring the powerful forces at work in the balance of nature and how humans are constantly trying to assert their dominance, ultimately hurting them in the long run. Humans have overlooked nature itself as a provider of pesticide control. They instead have created a chemically weakened environment that has opened the door to an enormous insect population.

Environmentalism is a broad philosophy and social movement that involves the concerns for environmental conservation. It strives to improve the health of the environment as well as stop the constant destructive harm done by humans. Silent Spring has had an influential impact on environmentalism and its followers. Rachel Carson has strengthened humans desire for preservation and restoration of the natural environment. She gives the cold hard facts involving the devastating effects of toxic chemicals on the earth and its organisms as a way of starting a war against the agencies. Chemical industries are even compared to as a child of World War II. Carson does this by revealing shocking stories of innocent children dying due to parathion poisoning. And yet with multiple deaths, millions of pounds of this poison are still applied yearly to the U.S
orchards fields. The only thing keeping the poisons from wiping out the human race is its rapid decomposition. Carson also discusses how dangerous radiation and chemicals are the new diseases, even with our improved living conditions and miracle drugs and medicine. These
detrimental outcomes of chemical poisoning wake up readers and allows them to easily join in on environmentalism in hopes of reversing the
effects of what has already been done.

Through the discussion of influential events, Rachel Carson effectively stirs the thoughts and feelings of our society, pushing it towards realization of its own destruction. Evidence is clear and backed by other sources as well as research done by Carson. Chemical agencies are effectively put on the spot, revealing how their power has lead to corruption as well as destruction towards the environment all to make more money. Their poor decisions have lead to nearly irreversible contamination of ecosystems including air, water, soil, and wildlife that can still be measured and seen decades later. Although an unpleasant and negative portrayal of the earth’s environment, Silent Spring is an revolutionary novel that has transformed our society and strengthened the fight for environmentalism.

Essay#2 Book Review – Eating healthy? Good Point, Bad Argument.

“What to eat, what not to eat, and how to think about health?” these questions are the most popular questions to be asked and considered nowadays. In the book In Defense of Food, the author Micahael Pollan provides his well considered answers, “Eat food, Not too much, Mostly plants.” Pollan thinks that people used to know how to eat well, but it has been ruined buy the modern food industry makers and so-called nutritional scientists. Athough the author Michael Pollan’s book In Defense of Food gives some valuable ideas about healthy way of eating, it is not a good example of a strong argument because it addresses some unconvincing examples, it uses false inferences from the contentions, and it lists many uncertain causal relationships in supporting the idea but actually weakens the argument.

People always want to have a healthy life, but nowadays people are in the wrong way of getting healthy. The real healthy problem for modern people is talking too much but having not enough exercise. That because the modern life makes people lazy. One will not wants to move his/her fingers if he/she has a sound control system, like the one of new smart phones’ new function. However, people still want a healthy and fit body, so people try to use money and technology to make up. That is the reason why they carefully watching the Nutrition facts on every food and calculating how much calories they still need to take for a day. Also, the so-called nutritional scientists are misleading people, people drink tea only because scientists said it could prevent cancers; they drink wine just to get rid of heart diseases; and they eat soybeans because they have been told that soybeans could improve their immunities to avoid getting flues. In the book In Defense of Food, it mainly criticizes the reductionism. Those scientists break down food into nutrition part and simplified them, then combine the simplified nutrition parts together to create some expensive nutrition medicines or processed foods. They use advertisements to convince consumers these recreated food are far more better than the “real food” and will makes one more healthy. Pollan argues that the recreated food is oversimplified that cannot have the same nutrition content as the “real food”, not to say have more nutrition. I totally agree with Pollan’s idea in his book, because I also do not believe the advertisements and slogans from modern food industries. However, I cannot agree the way of his argument.

First of all, he addresses some unconvincing examples in the book to proof his opinion. For example, he mentions an old study in 1982. The experiment was to let a group of ten middle-aged, over-weight, and diadetic Aborigines living in settlements near the town of Derby, Western Australia, return to their traditional homeland and live away from the civilization. They had to rely reclusively on foods they hunted and gathered themselves. After seven weeks, their western diseases such as obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and hypertension were all either greatly deduced or completely normalized. He adds the group became sick again after returning the western life style by eating western diet. As a conclusion, the fresh foods that are directly founded from the wild are good and western diet which includes is sugar, beer, powdered milk, and cheap fatty meat is bad. This conclusion is impetuous because food is not the only changing factor in this study. The most important causal factor that cannot be ignored is the changing of their lifestyle: eat less, move more. They got plenty of exercises while hunting and gathering foods which could make their body more healthy and fit. Other changes like air condition and water condition could also affect their health. Furthermore, this study was just a short-term small scale experiment with only 10 samples. Compared with lots of modern long-term, massive contrast experiment, this study’s consequence is not convincing. Moreover, this study was done in 1982 and the book was published in 2008 talking about the modern eating style. It is obviously the example cannot proof his opinion.

Secondly, Pollan uses some false inferences from the contentions. For example, when he says the heart disease has becoming more and more in the book, then he gives the number of deaths due to heart attacks in the United States. In 1945 the number is 217000 and increased to 500,000 in 1960 but decreased to 185,000 in 2001. He infers that high consumption of saturated fat will make more heart diseases from the figures. He explains that the reason why deaths were decreases in 2001 was because of the change in diagnostic criteria and population size. At this point, he just suffers from contentions he picked from two sides. Visually, the number the number of death decreased in 2001 compared with 1960 which cannot get his inferences from it. Actually, by taking his explanations into consideration, the number of deaths should be in terms of the rate of total population or otherwise the numbers are incomparable. This is just one of the examples of false inferences in the book.

Thirdly, the book lists many uncertain causal relationships in supporting the idea but actually weakens the argument. When he talks about the good eating habits makes people healthier, he says that slender French people can have gobs of saturated fat without trouble because their eating habit is better than Americans. This causal relationship is ridiculers because there is slender Americans having gobs of saturated fat and there is also over-weight French not eating gobs of saturated fat. One cannot believe the fact that Pollan list from the uncertain causal relationship like this one. There are lots of uncertain causal relationships in the last part of this book. Such as eat meals is better for eating, eating at a table is good for health, and eating with others makes one eat more, etc. By explaining these uncertain causal relationships, he uses many uncertain words like “probably”, “may cause”, “might” and “could” which dramatically weakens his argument because readers cannot believe in what Pollan says when Pollan himself is also unsure.

At all events, Michael Pollan’s book In Defence of Food provides a good way of eating, although there are some problems in way of arguing. People should eat more natural food than the processed food. That is the real way of eating healthy. All in all, this main opinion of this book is valuable and this book is worth reading.

Research Paper Rough Draft 1: Are Environmental Factors Causing the Decline in Returning Salmon?

Are Environmental Factors Causing the Decline in Returning Salmon?

By David Mondok

English 213

Academic Writing Social and Natural Sciences

After years of discussions about the decline in returning salmon, I have begun to contemplate about the reason for the decline in returning population of salmon. With all the research that has been done on the harvesting numbers and trending the decline of returning fish, we have seen poor numbers in the returns; even with the Emergency Closures on harvesting seasons. Being a fisherman, I have seen and experienced some of the environmental factors that may be impacting fisheries. How do these factors impact the fisheries? Although salmon harvests maybe contributing to the decline of returning numbers, environmental factors having a larger effect on the salmon fisheries, because with the increased human activity and the introduction of invasive species of predators the  number of returning salmon continue to decline.

While there is no way to have exact numbers in the salmon populations, we can provide rough estimates of population numbers and annual averages allowing us to make informed decisions on the management of our natural resources. To narrow down this topic I am going to focus on three rivers across Alaska; Kenai River, Copper River, and Deshka River. These rivers receive steady pressure throughout Alaska’s salmon fishing season and also have commercial fleets that fish the ocean near the mouth of these rivers. They have also been monitored for several years with fish counters to provide biologist with relatively accurate information on the types of fish as well as the numbers.

All of the following salmon run calculations were gathered from the Alaska Fish and Games website.

On the Deshka River, fish biologists have been counting the returns of salmon to determine a 15 year average of 26,170 Chinook salmon and a 14 year average of 27,846 Coho salmon. Over the last 5 years the Chinook population has fluctuated from 18,800 in 2007 to 19,100 in 2011, but dipped as low as 7,550 in 2008. Chinook salmon’s life cycles usually run 4-5 years which likely means that the Chinook run in 2012 will have a very poor outlook. The Coho runs over the last 5 years have seen similar fluctuation from 10,600 in 2007 to 7,550 in 2011, but had a spike in 2009 at 27,400. Coho salmon’s life cycle usually span 3-4, so with the 5 year average being below 15,000 the Coho salmon has lost nearly 50 percent of its’ population in the last 10 years.

The Kenai River has been monitored very similar to the Deshka River, however due to receiving multiple runs of the same species the data is more difficult to keep concise, so I am going to convert the data into an overall sums of the species runs. The 23 year average of Kenai River Chinook salmon for the early and late run combined is 57,935. Between 2007 and 2010 the Chinook runs average was 37,950 but due to no longer having an early run count I cannot accurately provide an average for 2011, the late Chinook run count for 2011 was approximately 35,000 fish. The Sockeye salmon 21 year average is estimated to be 1,273,388. Over the last 5 years Sockeye salmon runs have been remaining fairly steady ranging from 1,230,000 in 2007 to 1,599,300 in 2011, with 2008’s run being the lowest at 917,200. The Kenai River also receives runs of Coho salmon but their numbers are not monitored as extensively as the Chinooks and Sockeyes.

The Sockeye run is the only run that is counted on the Copper River. The 11 year average for the Copper River Sockeye salmon run is 786,825. Over the last 5 years 3 of the runs have stayed fairly steady from 926,500 in 2007 to 914,300 in 2011, but in 2008 and 2009 the salmon numbers were poorly recorded to sonar counter operations. With the 3 of the last 5 years runs being over the 11 year average, it appears that the Copper River Sockeye population is doing well or is at least able to sustain steady numbers.

Out of the 3 different rivers across the Alaska and 3 species of salmon, it appears that the Deshka River Coho salmon have seen the most drastic decline in numbers. There may be several reasons for this ranging from harvesting to invasive species of fish in the water ways. Throughout Alaska salmon are harvested for personal and commercial use, both of which are regulated by Alaska Fish and Game by maintaining an open season, however of the 3 species of salmon on two of the species have set date for an open and a close of season and those species are Chinook and Sockeye salmon. Across most of the state it is legal to harvest Coho salmon during the entire year, leaving high harvest numbers by sports fisherman. Commercial fishing is regulated by the length of fishing season, hours during the day, and days of the week that salmon can be caught.

There are also factors other harvesting that may be causing the decline in salmon populations from human activities and predators. Humans have been utilizing the same streams and rivers that the salmon spawn in for rafting, boating, fishing, gold mining and even off-roading.  These activities disturb the stream beds kicking up rocks, silt, and even salmon eggs, which are either covered by the dislodged debris or eaten by the native fish that live in the waterways all year long. If even one salmon redd is destroyed nearly a 1,000 eggs could be lost, lowering the returning population even more.

In the river salmon fry or smolt’s natural predators in most of Alaska have been trout, birds, and some mammals like river otters. In some areas of Alaska they face a new predator in the ecosystem and that is the Northern Pike, a very aggressive predatory fish that can consume over half a dozen smolts in one day. In areas where pike have started to show up salmon numbers have begun to decline, the Deshka River is one such area. Pike tend to prefer slower more vegetated waterways that also happen to be the habitat for the salmon fry. Pike have very few natural predators, the largest threat to pike are other larger pike. With pike consuming large numbers of smolt in the rivers it reduce the number of salmon that will face the open ocean and reach mature spawning age.

While it is an ever revolving cycle of life, the age old adage holds true “which came first the chicken or the egg”. As harvesting salmon target the mature spawning fish reduces the number of eggs that turn into smolt, the factors that reduce the number of smolt that make it to the ocean reduces the return of spawning fish. While it is important to have a healthy escapement of adult salmon, it may be even more important to reduce the disruption of the salmon redds were large numbers of eggs are vulnerable.

Over the last decade the amount of salmon that is harvest of the coast of Alaska has grown drastically. With the entire world looking to have a piece of this nutrient rich food the demand for salmon has increased. Commercial companies are not just harvesting salmon by the ton but by thousands of tons a year. By placing a limit on the amount of fish one company can harvest and have processed or shipped from Alaska the massive quantities of fish that are caught and sent around the world would be reduced. It may seem to be a selfish act, but these companies are taking away from the resources of Alaska and reducing the population of salmon across the board. In order to enforce this would cost Alaska millions of dollars in enforcement but would also create more jobs along the coast, bringing more stability to Alaska’s economy.

While reducing the number of salmon harvested may be important, the state would have to impose seasonal catch limits on salmon species similar to those that regulate Chinook salmon harvests. By putting a seasonal limit on sportsman harvest instead of just a daily limit, the state could regulate the number of salmon each individual harvests during the year. In subsistence areas of Alaska this would be difficult to implement without allowing for an additional supplement. The other factors that would arise from a seasonal limit is determining the number of fish that would be allowed by one individual to harvest and how to enforce the recording of the harvests, which would cost the state more money supporting wildlife enforcement.

The most important aspect of preserving any species is allowing for a large number of the population to breed. By placing restriction on the use of the waterways that are used by the salmon to build their redds, the species receives the greatest chance for their numbers to rebound. It will be difficult to get the approval of Alaskans in order to put restrictions on the waterways, but the easiest way to gain approval is by doing a trial phase on rivers across the state; were the activities that cause the most disruption to the river bed are restricted to certain parts of the river and times of the year. By running a trial phase of around 5 years on the selected river it would be possible to see how the restrictions have benefited the population of salmon in the area over 2 or possibly 3 life cycles of salmon.

The only ways to begin controlling the outbreak of northern pike in Alaska’s salmon streams is by offering a bounty on the fish or encourage kill-or-capture movement in those areas. By enlisting the help of the anglers in the state and offering an incentive, the state may be able to reduce the number of pike affecting the salmon population. With pikes aggressive nature, they are a very entertaining fish to seek because of their explosive power on top-water lures and their fighting strength. By drastically reducing the number of pike that live in the salmon streams, the prey on which they feed will begin to rebound. Unfortunately, the only way to completely remove pike from these waters would be to conduct a fish kill which would decimate ecosystem along the rivers and even in to the ocean, of course removing this as a viable option.

The regulations that we have in place to protect the salmon population have been enough to prevent a complete failure of the ecosystem but have not been as effect as they need to be. Through having harvest regulations for the entire state of Alaska and utilizing Emergency Orders to either close areas that salmon runs have been weak or encourage more harvesting in areas with high salmon returns, the state has been able to slow the downward spiral of one of its vital resources. However, I do not feel that it has been successful enough to sustain the population and the resource indefinitely. The Alaskan government needs to do more to ensure the survival of its greatest renewable resource.

The key may be the implementation of waterway restrictions of human activities and encouraging the killing and/or harvesting of pike. With restricting the activities that humans can do around salmon spawning streams comes few redds that will be disturbed and fewer eggs that may be compromised or consumed by the native fish. With pike being a species of fish that has been introduced in the most of the salmon streams that they are affecting, their removal only seems to be in the better interest of the salmon. By the changing human activities and trying to reduce the effects of human mistakes in the past we may give salmon a fighting chance.

 

Abrahams, M. V., & Healey, M. C. (1993, April). A Comparison of the Willingness of Four Species of Pacific Salmon to Risk Exposure to a Predator. Nordic Society Okios, 66(3), 439-446. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3544938

Alaska Salmon Project. 1 Oct. 2011. http://fish.washington.edu/research/alaska/index.html

Dalton, R. (2002). Pike pests ravage Alaska’s salmon. Nature, 418(6901), 907. Retrieved from http://www.ebscohost.com

Fore, L. S., Karr, J. R., & Wisseman, R. W. (1996, June). Assessing Invertebrate Responses to Human Activities: Evaluating Alternative Approaches. Journal of the North American Benthological Society,  15(2), 212-231. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1467949

Irvine, J. R., & Fukuwaka, M. (2011). Pacific salmon abundance trends and climate change. ICES Journal of Marine Science / Journal du Conseil, 68(6), 1122-1130. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsq199

Kekäläinen, J. J., Niva, T. T., & Huuskonen, H. H. (2008). Pike predation on hatchery-reared Atlantic salmon smolts in a northern Baltic river. Ecology of Freshwater Fish, 17(1), 100-109. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0633.2007.00263.x

Lawson, P. W., Logerwell, E. A., Mantua, N. J., Francis, R. C., & Agostini, V. N. (2004). Environmental factors influencing freshwater survival and smolt production in Pacific Northwest coho salmon (Oncorhynchuskisutch). Canadian Journal of Fisheries & Aquatic Sciences, 61(3), 360-373. doi:10.1139/F04-003

Levasseur, M., Bergeron, N. E., Lapointe, M. F., & Bérubé, F. (2006). Effects of silt and very fine sand dynamics in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) redds on embryo hatching success. Canadian Journal of Fisheries & Aquatic Sciences, 63(7), 1450-1459. doi:10.1139/F06-050

Pacific Fishery Management Council (2008, February 4). Salmon Population Declines In California, West Coast. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080129210349.htm

Ward, D. M., Nislow, K. H., Folt, C. L., & Osenberg, C. (2008). Predators reverse the direction of density dependence for juvenile salmon mortality. Oecologia, 156(3), 515-522. doi:10.1007/s00442-008-1011-4

Willette, T., Cooney, R., Patrick, V., Mason, D., Thomas, G., & Scheel, D. (2001). Ecological processes influencing mortality of juvenile pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha ) in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Fisheries Oceanography, 1014. Retrieved from http://www.ebscohost.com

(1992, March 20). SALMON IN DECLINE OFF WEST COAST. New York Times. p. 6. Retrieved from http://www.ebscohost.com

 

Thesis Statement #2 The Seed From The Box

I first grabbed this book when I spied the cover and title. Both seemed to be intriguing and the title itself related to a well known Ancient Greek legend.

Spencer Wells’s book Pandora’s Seed: The Unforseen Cost Of Civilization relates the reader to how the early humans lived off the land by being nomadic and mainly hunting/ gathering for food and how we changed from that lifestyle to one of farming and how being nomadic was healthier overall.

Although now and days we think of farming as a good lifestyle and accessible food, Wells claims that growing crops and making more permanent homes caused changed such as bodily needs, disease, religion, and how the land was used. Wells also claims that because people made the switch from nomads to farmers, people became more dependant on industrialized ways and domesticated animals; which made for a less healthy and renewable living. Domesticated animals brought about diseases, farming brought soil degredation and people couldn’t move as readily.

Response #9 Tropic Green House

Well, first off from seeing the site, I don’t think one would need a house like that in the Caribbean. Its warm enough that all you need is a small shack. This site seems to be seeking an audience that is rich and has money to spend on lavish get away homes in the tropics. It is nice to know that there are houses available that would help preserve the natural beauty of the are though. By using solar power, of which there is a lot of in the Caribbean, there is no harm whatsoever to the environment except in what may occur while building the house. Which I’m guessing is the main point of the houses. It’s just that you would have to visit there often enough to make it worth while or move there. The site proposes to build better, more efficient homes, while providing work to the local people. All in all, the website itself seems pretty effective. It claims to provide efficient houses in tropical areas while supporting the local economy. All of these are good intentions in their on right. They have sponsors, which is nice, but I’m failing to see how much it would cost to build your own house down there. I’m going to guess it’s a fair amount.